Sunday, July 31, 2005
Somebody's cranky and needs a nap.
I have no sympathy. A professional reporter should be the last person to get upset when someone reports on them. Freedom of the press, right Helen?
Time to be a cynic
Not that it's exactly the most shocking news that he thinks this way, but I have a question for Pres. Carter: Remember Iran, the oil shortage, inflation, how well his Middle East policy worked, and this? (ok, the last one's more humorous than anything else, but still . . . )
He's a good person who's done many good things, but he should just stick to building houses for the poor.
Just stating the obvious.
1) I have a reason to mention this idiot. Seriously, buddy, do some research into the relationship between mental health and physical activity.
2) I hope I'm in as good a physical condition when I'm 59.
Friday, July 29, 2005
"Helen Thomas still alive."
"Helen Thomas not biased."
"Helen Thomas not bitter."
"Instead of killing yourself if Cheney runs, why not wait to see if he actually wins."
"Helen Thomas REALLY wants a headline."
Ok, that's enough for now. I could probably think up a few more, but this has already taken up enough of my time, although I do have this last one:
"Shut up Helen"
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
You know, just yesterday I realized I hadn't blogged about Howard Dean in awhile. Today, like a gift from particularly benevolent God, I was roaming around Townhall.com and found out that yep, Howard Dean just can't keep his mouth shut, no matter what members of his own party told him last month. In fact, I think he's going even further off the deep end. I'll let his liberal-line "the GOP is evil" stuff slide for now; I mean, what else should we expect out of a DNC Chairman, much less Howard Dean? The part of the article that nearly made me spew my coffee across my laptop was this:
The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is.
Wait! What? I'll give you a second to read that again . . .
Yes, DNC Chairman Howard Dean said to a group of College Democrats of America that President Bush and his "right-wing Supreme Court" were the ones who decided the case of KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. You know, revisionist history usually only occurs when something can no longer be considered very recent history. If you'll kindly click that link above and scroll down to the bottom, you'll see which Justices concurred and dissented to the opinion of the Court. That's right, the three most conservative Justices (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices Scalia and Thomas) either dissented or joined in dissent against the ruling. So where exactly is Dean getting his information? The ultra-liberal voice in his head that talks too loudly for him to hear the truth?
But that just takes care of the "right-wing Supreme Court" part of his statement. The other part of his blatant lie is that Bush had anything to do with the Court's decision. . Bush did not appoint ANYONE to the Supreme Court. John Roberts is Bush's first nominee to the Court. I'll use Irish Pennants' words to illustrate what went through my mind when I read the above quote:
Is Dean that ignorant, that he knows nothing of the composition of the Supreme Court? Is he that stupid, that he thinks he can get away with a lie like this? Or is he living so deeply in an alternative reality where facts are irrelevant?
This is NOT going to help Dean raise money for his party.
I'm sure you noticed that the title of this post includes the words "Hillary" and "Centrists." Sen. Clinton has been tapped by the Democratic Leadership Council to "direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections." That initiative, apparently, is to move away from her previous left-wing leanings into a more moderate role in an attempt to better appeal to voters in 2008. (sidebar: wonder who she got that idea from?)
Ok, here's where the Howard and Hillary part come together: Hillary may try to present herself and the Democratic Party as becoming more centrist or moderate, but with Howard Dean as the face and voice of the DNC, she's going to have a long Sisyphean struggle ahead of her. Hillary may be a good politician and may be able to make some people like her more by putting up the appearance that she's moving to the right (yes, a shiver went down my spine upon typing that), but we all know where the Dems really stand; after all, Dean can't keep from telling us.
See also: Gateway Pundit and the Technorati link, since I ain't typing that many blog names.
Howard Dean creates more GOP voters
VERY local editorial
Sen. Clinton quiet on Rove so far. . . wonder why?
Hillary Clinton to support Bush nominee
Monday, July 25, 2005
Oh, and after reading "Baghdad Jane" in every other blog out there, I've decided that I'll not call her that until she summons up the intestinal fortitude to actually travel to Baghdad. . . she knows what kind of greeting those "poor, misunderstood freedom fighters" will give her.
Other blogger reactions:
The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy
The early assaults on Roberts from the left could barely disguise the fear lurking in the breasts of the attackers. Democrats are on the spot. If most Democratic senators vote to confirm Roberts, yielding to his stellar credentials, then they will have established the precedent that a conservative who neither commits himself to upholding Roe nor endorses its underlying rationale ought to be confirmed. If they vote against Roberts, then their opposition to the next appointee will be discounted--they're simply against anyone likely to be nominated by this president.Read the whole thing, it's well worth it.
Let's not lose sight of this, either: Merit is a conservative principle. Selecting a first-class nominee, and refusing to bend to political expediency, is a conservative act. In this respect, the nomination of Roberts sends a signal that Bush understands the Court matters, and that on things that matter, he will rise to the occasion and scorn identity politics.
Previous: Bush Nominates Roberts for SCOTUS
Bush's goal for SCOTUS
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Roll on over to Reasoned Audacity for a round-up of what some on the Left are trying to pull in regard to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Apparently, he's gay. Huh. . . I thought having a wife of many years and children usually steered people away from concluding THAT. Even if a Republican president DID nominate a homosexual judge, why would the left attack him on it? Isn't it a mantra of the left to have the right people in the right governmental position regardless of sex, race, religion, creed, or lifestyle? Isn't trying to prove that someone is gay in order to discredit him just a bit, well, homophobic? If this is how some people are going to try to discredit or hurt John Roberts' Senate confirmation process, then my earlier point about having little ammunition with which to attack him is on it's way to being proved.
Update: Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity has a further post on this issue as well, including her rebuttal to some of the feedback she's gotten.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Today in California American Muslims took to the streets to protest terror. One Muslim man, of Egyptian descent, said this in regard to the bombings in Egypt this week:
It's really bad. This is not the Muslim way.
And a Pakistani-American woman said this:
Killing any person is not right. Jihad is an inner struggle, not killing people.
Of course, some people aren't thinking quite as well as these two. As the Muslims were setting up for their protest, apparently some fool drove by and flashed the finger at them. The Pakistani-American woman's response?
"There are all kinds of people. They just need more education, that's all. We don't blame them. They will learn one day."
Also, an Army corporal, name unknown, shook hands with one of the protesters and commented,
Right now, people are biased against them. I wish I would see more of something along this line. Next to supporting the troops, this is equally good.
Oh, and check out what Power Line posted yesterday. Yep, that's right, there was a national moment of silence for the victims of terrorists in Iraq and in protest of those terrorists. Not here, but in Iraq, in full defiance of the terrorists.
Moreover, Gateway Pundit reports a similar situation in Denmark, by Danish-Iraqi's, and Blackfive has pictures up of an anti-terror march in Iraq on the 5th of this month.
I'll ask my question, and it's the same question others in the blogosphere are asking: Where is the MSM? Why isn't this being reported by large news outlets? Why aren't the MSM supporting and reporting on these anti-terrorist protests alongside their reports of bombings throughout the world? Are they too engaged in lending credibility to the terrorists, rather than showing what many Muslims around the world think of these radical Jihadists?
In other words, why do I have to dig into the blogosphere to learn about events like these? I can't sum my sentiment up any better than what The Anchoress had to say on the subject:
You know, if these people had blown something up, they’d be getting more press. Which suggests that if the press wants to help eliminate terrorism, it should adjust its priorities.
In the article, titled "Random Idiocy," Malkin calls for not random bag searches, but instead to actively engage in searching subjects who meet certain criteria: behavior, race, religion, etc. In other words, profiling, a word the ACLU, members of the media, and others have slammed so hard and so often that it automatically conjures up a negative impression in one's mind, rather than referring to an effective technique with which to find a suspected criminal. While I do agree with her that such profiling is what the NYPD should be doing in conducting their bag searches, I believe we should also look at what the security officials are having to deal with.
Were they to engage in active profiling of passengers on the NYC subways, there would be a massive legal fight from "civil-liberty" activists. The entire program of searches would be immediately shut down, and one more line of defense would be gone. This is obvious, and the security officials know it; therefore, they're taking what measures they can. Even the random bag searches are probably going to face a legal battle, though unless some activist can find evidence that the NYPD searches are not random, the searches in my opinion will continue.
Therefore, we should not attack the NYPD and other security officials as being "toothless" and degrading the level of security in the name of being "politically correct," we should be attacking those who have in the past and will try in the future to make the national security assets of this country toothless and politically correct. Yes, the latest security policy in the NYC subway system is cumbersome, but it's the best we can get until the apologist "civil-liberty" activists in this country are reigned in and face the reality of the situation.
For more on Malkin's opinion, here's the link to her blog entry as well.
Previous: I do not consent to being blown up.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii Democrat, met with several soldiers during a visit led by Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican.
Pentagon officials said soldiers criticized the harsh comments made recently by Senate Democrats.
"They got stiff reactions from those home-state soldiers," one official told us. "The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag."
Can't imagine that soldiers ordered to do this difficult, highly-criticized, and in-the-spotlight job dislike being insulted by their elected officials. Less-than-heartfelt apologies from Durbin and others will not go far in assuaging their sensibilities. Soldiers and their families can vote too, in case anyone's forgotten.
(hat tip to Instapundit, and for more, check out Blackfive)
Thursday, July 21, 2005
NYC subway travelers carrying bags will now be searched randomly. My personal view: a necessary inconvenience. Still, I think I can actually hear the annoying voices of the ACLU lawyers clamoring for someone to sue.
Ok, you know it wouldn't take long for a complicated issue that affects millions of people to get boiled down to a one-line phrase and ends up on a T-shirt.
Fine, you don't consent. . . and you don't ride the NYC subway system either, eh? Yeah, random bag searches is inconvenient and invasive, but so is a terrorist-detonated explosive device. If, God forbid, an attack of the same nature as the London attacks occurs in NYC, how many of the people complaining about the searches now would be questioning Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD as to why the searches weren't MORE invasive?
T-shirt rebuttal. (thanks Confederate Yankee) Also, check out Ace of Spades for their view on the subject (best part of the post is the first comment: "i do not consent to being searched until the third date." )
Update: Michelle Malkin says she's against the new policy for "polar opposite reasons" than the majority of anti-search activists and "will have more on tomorrow in an exclusive column for the NY Post." Have to see what that's all about. . .
So it's ok to control information and opinions given to the people as long as YOU control them? I think I'll keep finding the news my own way and keep on clicking those right-wing conspiracy links.
I'm sure you've heard all about the second group of bombings by now, but if you haven't, check out Reuters and the BBC; their coverage is as good as any until more information comes out.
In my opinion, this was the work of the same group of terrorists. At this time I think one of two things happened: 1) It was planned all along to have 2 attacks, with the first attack with their top 4 bomb/bomber combinations, or 2) they used the leftover explosives to attempt the second bombing after seeing the effects of the first. There doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support one option or the other at the moment. Either way, whoever planned and coordinated both of these attacks knew that they had one group of higher quality explosive devices and one group of lesser quality devices. I don't want to speculate too much on this right now, but hopefully the dearth of evidence recovered at the failed bomb sites along with the arrested suspects will provide a wealth of information with which security services can track down and destroy the leaders of this particular terrorist cell.
For extensive commentary, check out The Counterterroism Blog (and make it a daily read). They're all over this one.
Related: Check out Australian PM John Howard's response today to a reporter's inane question about Iraq. It's great.
Also Related: NYC subway travelers carrying bags will now be searched randomly. My personal view: a necessary inconvenience. Still, I think I can actually hear the annoying voices of the ACLU lawyers clamoring for someone to sue.
TV news is reporting 3 tube stations evacuated, possible small explosion, possibly a package exploding, smoke seen, and that emergency services are dispatching. Unconfirmed reports of gunshots heard on a subway platform and a possible incident on a bus.
developing. . .
Update: confirmed thus far: emergency services are dispatching to 3 tube stations due to an explosion. Reuters coverage, which is the same as everywhere else right now.
Update: Reuters crashed, BBC picks up the slack. ABC reporting that the sounds heard by some passengers were either gunshots or detonators. VERY unconfirmed.
Final Update: Incident appears to be nail bomb explosion along with possibly 3 failed bombing attempts. 1 confirmed injured. I'll resume blogging as normal when full information comes out.
This caught my eye this morning: It seems that the South leads the way in Army recruiting. Two paragraphs that really got my attention:
Far more new soldiers come from the South, however. The South still shoulders a disproportionate recruiting burden compared with the rest of the country; its recruits make up nearly 40 percent of the Army soldiers who have enlisted since the beginning of the fiscal year in October.
For the Army, at least, the Iraq war appears to have had little effect on recruiting in red states versus blue states. Recruiting is down by virtually the same amount in both areas - at 73 percent of 2000 levels in red states and 72 percent in blue states. Red states, however, have produced 63 percent of the recruits enrolled since October, though they make up barely more than half the total US population.
The article is also a pleasant expose of an Army recruiter, a Sgt. 1st Class David Lacks, who truly loves what he does: "I can take a kid who has nothing and give him direction."
Stephen Pollard at Britain's The Times Online calls out some of the competition on some dubious Iraqi death toll numbers. Many of Britain's prominent newspapers and other news outlets (the BBC, The Guardian, The Daily Mirror, etc.) ran headlines claiming that almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war. Mr. Pollard does some of his own research - on where those numbers came from that is.
There is only one problem with the figure — not that you would know it from the credulous reporting. It is an entirely arbitrary figure published by political agitators.
. . .
The organisation simply adds up all reports of casualties, no matter what the source or how scant the evidence.
I wonder how many of those "civilians" were insurgents who died in combat? I'll let him sum my feelings up for me:
The civilian costs of the war have been greater than its advocates expected. It does not help in getting to the truth, however, when parts of the media report partisan lobbying as fact.Read the whole thing here.
"Thousands of protesters in the capital, Sanaa, smashed government offices, blocked roads by setting tyres on fire, and knocked out electricity transformers in some areas."
Officials and the media, or at least those who've noticed, are blaming "a sharp rise in fuel prices a day earlier," but Armies of Liberation has a slightly different take on the subject: national economic collapse and widespread corruption. It seems that this is less a spontaneous uprising and more the final straw.
Reuters has additional reporting.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Ok, so it's been 24 hours for the pundits and blogosphere to react to the President's nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court, and I've had some time to do a little more reading on the subject. . . pesky life always getting in the way of prompt blog entries.
While it may be true that Robert's resume is thin, that doesn't mean Roberts won't be an effective conservative justice. Look at Bush's goal: get a staunch conservative with impeccable credentials appointed to the SCOTUS. In my opinion there were two ways to do this: 1) find a nominee that is "politically acceptable" in terms of gender, race, etc. and might not have the conservative credentials Bush is looking for, or 2) find a nominee that is "politically acceptable" in terms of his or her record, resume, and credentials, and can be judged on merit rather than gender, race, etc. It appears that Bush has gone with option #2, the "bland" candidate. Bush has simply found a candidate that both (mostly) agrees with conservative ideals AND will make it through the Senate confirmation process. Bush is trying to avoid yet another judicial firefight. This view is further supported if Bush and his staff did "consult with more than 70 members of the United States Senate. I received good advice from both Republicans and Democrats."
If Roberts can get through the Senate confirmation, then Bush has achieved his goal of getting a Justice MORE conservative than O'Connor on the bench. It's as simple as that. Of course, some on the right are afraid he'll be another David Souter, who unleashed his liberal side only after he was appointed to the bench. Ann Coulter says, in her latest column, which is well worth reading in full,
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that. . .
. . .Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
Though many people are worried about the filibuster, that option doesn't look likely to me, which, again, is what Pres. Bush wants. Last week, for example, Joe Lieberman, a member of the "Gang of 14" said this to the Hartford Courant:
"The administration has taken very encouraging and constructive steps," Lieberman said.
Lieberman cited in particular President Bush's statements that he had ruled out a litmus test for a nominee and that he would not be pressured by interest groups.
So far, though, Bush's comments "all sound like what most of us were hoping for," Lieberman said.
Also, there was this from Dianne Feinstein: “Do I believe this is a filibuster-able nominee? The answer would be no, not at this time I don’t." And from the same article: "the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee pledged that Roberts will receive 'full, fair and complete' hearings on his appointment." Additionally, Judge Roberts is paying visits to some of the key Senate leaders, which never hurts inside the Beltway. There will probably be a dogfight out of Dems like Kennedy and Leahy, but does that surprise ANYONE? Bush could have picked Oliver Wendell Holmes himself and gotten Senators like those two mad.
To sum up an overly long entry, Bush wanted a conservative on the Supreme Court. He found Roberts, a nominee who would give the opposition very little ammunition to impede the process. The fight is NOT by any means over, but it does seem that Bush is MUCH closer to his goal than many people realized.
Like I said yesterday, check out Blogs for Bush for a list of blogger reactions.
Oh, and for a reaction from the extreme left, check out these comments at Daily Kos (gay son ammunition?? sick), then go to Michelle Malkin.com for what Bush was actually smiling at and what Mrs. Roberts was cringing at.
Previous: Bush Nominates Roberts for SCOTUS
Pretty obvious stuff, but it seems that most of the MSM needs to go back to Journalism 101.
sooooo. . . does he just have a group of people that are secretly paid by some unknown entity (I'm guessing Illuminati) to constantly praise him? Stevie Wonder may be excused from mockery, as he's never seen any of Seagal's movies.
Next up, Van-Damme lays down some phat hip-hop beats, and Chuck Norris stars in a cheesy TV show. (oh, wait. . . )
“We need to get people together,” Khan said. “I was upset by what happened (in London), all my friends were upset. We need people to help stop things like this happening. Hopefully, I am one of them. I will do anything I can.”
Khan entered the ring to the strains of Land of Hope and Glory, his brother, Harry, carried a Union Jack with “London” emblazoned across it and some of his supporters carried banners combining the flags of Britain and Pakistan, with the words “No Terrorism”. Even Khan’s sponsored baseball cap was accessorised with a black ribbon.
Good for him.
It should be noted that he beat his opponent into the mat in 109 seconds. Don't know if that's relevant to his political views, but it's still pretty cool, especially since it was his first professional fight.
(hat tip to geniejunkie)
El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.
He declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking."
Interestingly, when the CNN crew requested another interview with him, El-Amir told them it would cost them $5,000, which he would promptly give to "someone to carry out another terror attack." CNN declined; apparently, their policy is to not pay anyone for interviews. I wonder, however, how many less-scrupulous media outlets are out there willing to pay for such interviews.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
I won't pontificate on the nomination that much right now, as it's late here, but to learn more about Judge Roberts' bio, resume, etc. over at RealClearPolitcs. And Matt over at Blogs for Bush has a HUGE list of blogger reactions.
More on this later. . . Garm needs sleep, and this topic will take awhile to research.
No matter what anyone may think of the Vietnam war, Gen. Westmoreland was a truly career soldier who spent over 30 years in the U.S. Army. Although he served in combat in three major conflicts, his time in Vietnam obviously garners the most attention, spending much of his time, in my opinion, fighting the press and contentious civilian leadership. I'll let him speak for himself:
It's more accurate to say our country did not fulfill its commitment to South Vietnam. By virtue of Vietnam, the U.S. held the line for 10 years and stopped the dominoes from falling.
Few people have a field command as long as I did. They put me over there and they forgot about me. But I was there seven days a week, working 14 to 16 hours a day.
I have no apologies, no regrets. I gave my very best efforts. I've been hung in effigy. I've been spat upon. You just have to let those things bounce off.
As we do for all veterans, we thank you for your service to our country, Gen. Westmoreland.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Maybe students would learn better if there were teachers that can teach well, parents that are actively involved in the lives of their children, and a curriculum and school board that supports such. Would that work? And before someone says something along the lines of "well, we've tried doing that before, and it didn't work," why don't we try investigating WHY it didn't work before immediately trying to find the easy way out?
Mary Texeira, a sociology professor at Cal State San Bernardino, commended the San Bernardino Board of Education for approving the policy in June. Texeira said research has shown that students learn better when they fully comprehend the language they are being taught in.
Education is supposed to be hard, supposed to be challenging. Otherwise, we'd all be born with all the knowledge that can otherwise be gained through education.
Luckily there are some cooler heads in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, such as Teresa Parra, the school board vice president, who said:
I'm afraid that now that we have this the Hispanic community, our largest population, will say, 'We want something for us.' Next we'll have the Asian community and the Jewish community (asking for their own programs). When will it end?'
I've always thought that we should provide students support based on their needs and not on their race.
Hopefully Parra's voice of logic has allies and will not be drowned out by the supporters of this illogical and counterproductive program.
Hat tip to Drudge.
". . . 42% of liberals saying they believe in ghosts--but only 25% of conservatives and 35% of moderates saying this." [sic]
Sunday, July 17, 2005
This is not to say that lawmakers were the people that actually brought in the drugs, but instead of cracking down on illegal drug use, "the parliament may look into whether the testing was legal as it was performed without its consent or knowledge."
Related (has more information than the same topic from the BBC.)
Still, I'd rather eat a copy of a cow named 86 Squared (great name, guys, sheesh) than one of these quality stumbling sponges, ironically, also from Texas.
All joking aside, who are we to complain if BSE could be eradicated, along with anthrax etc.? That's a GOOD thing, right?
On the other hand, maybe we should prepare to bow down before our bovine overlords, with their movable horns and opposable thumbs.
Somewhere, Gary Larson is laughing.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
"SICK: Blind man accused of having sex with his guide dog."
The first one gets the brass ring because of the content of the article: "A significant number of people, we believe, have likely visited this farm." Somehow I'm not surprised, but still . . . where were these people BEFORE the internet, seriously? You know they were out there.
Friday, July 15, 2005
If you can't win fairly, then cheat, but cheat better than that, please.
As soon as her site is fixed, you can support the congresswoman 2006 campaign here. In the meantime you can read more about her activities in the House here.
Found the story at Army Times, and the video (yes, video) is here.